Miller v. Shallowford Community Hosp., Inc.

• Citation: 767 F.2d 1556
• Decision Date: 12 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-8914,84-8914
• Parties: Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,684 In the Matter of Rodney P. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHALLOWFORD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Robert Trauner, Trustee. Non-Argument Calendar.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Page 1556

767 F.2d 1556

Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,684

In the Matter of Rodney P. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHALLOWFORD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee Robert Trauner, Trustee.

No. 84-8914.

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 12, 1985.

Donn M. Peevy, Lawrenceville, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

R. Michael Thompson, Norcross, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Robert Trauner, Atlanta, Ga., for trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this bankruptcy case, debtor Rodney Miller ("Miller") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of creditor Shallowford Community Hospital, Inc. ("Shallowford"). In granting summary judgment, the district court affirmed a decision of the bankruptcy court which held that Miller's claim for insurance proceeds under the Georgia no-fault insurance law, although asserted after the commencement of Miller's bankruptcy case and subsequent to his discharge in bankruptcy, was property of the debtor's estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 541(a)(1). Thus, the courts below held such proceeds were available to Miller's creditors upon Shallowford's petition to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The undisputed facts of this case are as follows. On March 30, 1979, Atlanta Casualty Co. ("Atlanta Casualty") issued an automobile insurance policy to Miller. Under the Georgia no-fault insurance law, Atlanta Casualty was required to make available on an optional basis up to $50,000 of personal injury protection insurance ("optional PIP") per insured, including the statutory minimum of $5,000 PIP insurance. See Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 56-3404b(a)(1). Atlanta Casualty did not include on Miller's application for insurance the statutorily required spaces for the insured to indicate his acceptance or rejection of optional PIP benefits as was required by Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 56-3404b(b). ¹

On September 25, 1979, Miller was involved in a serious car accident. Miller was admitted to Shallowford and was treated there for injuries suffered in the car accident. He incurred a substantial debt to Shallowford. On November 20, 1979, Atlanta Casualty, consistent with the terms of its insurance contract with Miller, paid to Miller and Shallowford $5,000 in standard PIP insurance benefits.

On October 22, 1980, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 156 Ga.App. 230, 274 S.E.2d 623 (1980). In Jones, the court held that under Ga.Code Ann. Secs. 56-3404b(a)(1) and (b) every application for no-fault insurance was required to contain separate spaces next to each optional coverage which under the law had to be offered. ² Under Jones, in order to effectively In the instant case, it is undisputed that Miller's insurance form did not contain the separate spaces required under Sec. 56-3404b(b). Moreover, there is no allegation that proper notice was sent to Miller under Sec. 56-3404b(c). ³ Nevertheless, Miller did not tender an additional premium when the Jones case was decided and, therefore, he did not receive optional PIP coverage at that time.

                reject or accept optional coverages, the signature of the insured would have to appear in the separate designated spaces.  If the contract was not so signed, the insured was deemed to have a "continuing offer" to accept or reject the optional coverages within 30 days after the notice of an offer for such coverages had been mailed to the insured under Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 56-3404b(c).  If after the 30-day period the insured had not responded to the insurer's notice of offer for optional coverages, such offer was deemed rejected.  However, if the insured did not receive proper notice or if he responded within the 30-day period, he was entitled under Jones to accept the "continuing offer" simply by tendering the additional premium required for the optional coverage desired.   See Jones, 274 S.E.2d at 626-27
                

On March 18, 1982, Miller filed his bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978. On June 25, 1982, Miller received his general discharge in bankruptcy, including discharge of his primary debt to Shallowford. On July 27, 1982, the bankruptcy court closed Miller's case. See 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 350(a).

On December 1, 1982, the Georgia Court of Appeals overruled its prior decision in Jones and held that separate spaces for acceptance or rejection next to each optional coverage were not required by Sec. 56-3404b(b). Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Flewellen, 164 Ga.App. 885, 300 S.E.2d 166 (1982). However, on March 3, 1983, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision. Flewellen v. Atlanta Casualty Co., 250 Ga. 709, 300 S.E.2d 673 (1983). The supreme court held, as had the court of appeals in Jones, that a signature in the appropriate space next to each optional coverage offered was necessary in order to reject such coverage. Id. 300 S.E.2d at 676. Instead of embracing the Jones court's notion of a "continuing offer," however, the supreme court held that if optional PIP coverage was not effectively "waived," i.e., rejected, by the insured the policy would from its inception provide for the maximum coverage of $50,000 On May 23, 1983, Miller's attorney demanded optional PIP benefits by tendering the additional premium owed and submitting proof of loss to Atlanta Casualty. On June 20, 1983, Atlanta Casualty responded to Miller's demand by issuing a joint check payable to Miller, Miller's attorney and Shallowford for approximately $45,000 (the $50,000 maximum PIP coverage less $5,000 in PIP coverage already paid under the policy). Shallowford refused to endorse the check to Miller and on June 27, 1983 it filed an application in the bankruptcy court to reopen Miller's Chapter 7 proceeding. In addition, Shallowford filed a complaint to revoke the discharge of Miller's debt to Shallowford, claiming that it was due $19,095.50. The theory underlying Shallowford's claim was that, at the time Miller filed his Chapter 7 petition, Miller had an asset which was not reflected on his bankruptcy schedules and, therefore, the bankruptcy trustee was unable to secure such asset on behalf of Miller's creditors. This asset was in the form of a contractual right to or a cause of action for the maximum optional PIP benefits as established in the Jones case. Shallowford argued that these additional insurance proceeds could have been recovered and distributed to the creditors if the trustee had been aware of this asset during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding.

                which by statute had to be offered to all insureds.  Id.  Therefore, under Flewellen, if optional PIP coverage is not effectively rejected an "insured has the right to demand and receive the benefit of $50,000 coverage upon tender by the insured of such additional premium as may be due and filing of proof of loss by the injured party."    Id
                

On June 30, 1983, the bankruptcy court ordered the reopening of Miller's case. On June 11, 1984, the bankruptcy court ruled that the proceeds of Miller's claim against Atlanta Casualty were property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 541(a)(1), agreeing with Shallowford that Miller's right to optional PIP benefits existed at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed. Therefore, the bankruptcy court ordered the trustee to distribute the proceeds of the optional PIP benefits as was necessary to satisfy the claims of Miller's creditors. On November 6, 1984, the district court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

The Bankruptcy Code broadly defines the property of a debtor's estate to include "all legal or equitable interests of the debtor and property as of the commencement of the case." 11 U.S.C.A. Sec. 541(a)(1). The legislative history indicates that this definition includes causes of action existing at the time of the commencement of the bankruptcy action. See S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 82, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5787, 5868; H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 367, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5963, 6323. It is clear, then, that the trustee in bankruptcy succeeds to all causes of action held by the debtor at the time the bankruptcy petition is filed, including actions "arising from contract" such as any rights Miller may have had under his contract of insurance with Atlanta Casualty. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy p 541.10 (15th ed. 1985). The sole issue in this case, therefore, is whether Miller had a cause of action for optional PIP benefits at a time he commenced his bankruptcy proceeding. ⁴

Miller filed his bankruptcy petition in March of 1982. At that time, Jones v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. was the authoritative interpretation of Sec. 56-3404b(b) of the Georgia no-fault automobile insurance law. As indicated above, under Jones, Miller could have simply tendered an additional premium for the maximum optional PIP coverage, and thereby accepted Atlanta Casualty's "continuing offer" of optional PIP coverage under its contract of insurance with Miller. There is no question in this case that the contract of insurance did not conform to the requirements of Sec. 56-3404b(b), as interpreted by the Jones court. Thus, if Atlanta Casualty had refused Miller's acceptance of its "continuing offer," Miller could have successfully pursued a cause of action under Jones. Although the bankruptcy trustee in this case was not aware of Miller's Jones-based cause of action because it was not listed on Miller's schedule of assets, that does not mean the asset should be unavailable to creditors once the asset is discovered. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy p 350.03 & cases cited (regarding "reopening of the case to administer newly discovered assets").

Miller argues that he should not be deemed to have...